Update

[HisChild]

[quote name='littlesister' date='07 November 2009 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1257637736' post='1997898']
Thanks, Picchick, you have said exactly what I was thinking but was saving for when I could read the first post more slowly. No religious calling is about what WE want. It's about what HE wants. Starting out with a list of terms and conditions, once the right spot has supposedly been found, would be a great way to mis-read everything else. The Church is made up of human beings, so human frailty is inevitable, but that isn's where the focus is. Picchick's comments about nursing (I'm one too) and vocation are right on the mark.
[/quote]


Oh look, another nurse! I'm one too. And yes, Picchick is on the money about our job. Either that, or we're all crazy. Or a little of both.

[picchick]

lol I guess shouldn't have deleted it.... Now I can't remember the exact words I used. I guess I could try to paraphrase.

[picchick]

Thanks to HisChild I have my original post.

Just curious: why do you feel that you are called to the priesthood. They way you describe things you don't really seem to have the calling (this coming from an outside person reading your posts)

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='07 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1257613431' post='1997744']
I think this is a romanticized view, to a degree. I know lots of priests, and trust me, there is plenty of wheeling-and-dealing and "negotiating" about assignments, salaries, etc.
[/quote]
When you picture a priest and from my seminarian friends that I know, this is not what you see. And quite frankly I DO NOT want a priest who wants to wheel and deal and negotiate assignments and what not. What kind of example is that? We are to be obdient to the Church. So should the priest.

If it happens, there is nothing I can do about it. YET, you are already assuming on this and feeding into it. I don't like it.

[quote]
The romantic view of this all as some sacred thing with pure-motives and sheer selflessness is a great ideal...but in reality, the day to day running of the "business" of the Church is much more petty, trivial, and mundane.
[/quote]

I am a nurse. There are soooo many romantic views of being a nurse. Pure motives, selflessness, the dare to care, whatever else. Oh so romantic. However, when you get down to it, nursing is dirty buisness. You get yelled at by docs. You clean up mushy mud pie. You get yelled at by your fellow nurses. You get vomit on you. I mean it is pretty hard work. However, I love it. There are times that things get rough but I could not imagine doing anything else. And it all started out with pure motives and sheer selflessness.

Being a priest is a sacred thing. If you do not have pure motives and the sheer will to be selfless, please, do not become a priest. Just as I would want a nurse and I strive to be a nurse who fights for her patients, give them the best care despite obstacles in my way, I would want a priest who will strive to help me become holy, be able to come to my house at whatever hour of the day or night to give my parents last rites, be able to hear my confession even if it is not confession time, and the list goes on.


[quote]
Again, I think this is romanticized. Plenty of men go through this process and DONT come out as good priests. If anything, I would say it has been a spectacular failure in the past 40 years, letting a lot of defective psyches through.

The number of priests who arent REALLY being celibate is apparently scandalously high, and many priests are in therapy for other things (alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, anxiety, etc).

It seems to me that they still care more about whether a man can be an obedient conformist than about any other criteria. There are lots of good normal guys I know who have told me they couldnt stand being institutionalized like that, but who I know are more mature than a lot of the stunted adolescent psyches I've met in numerous seminaries.
[/quote]
No, it is training to be obdient to the Church. We all have to do that.

[quote]
Compared to all those unhealthy motives, I think my desire to be treated as an independent American adult instead of treated like some adolescent at boot-camp or boarding-school...is just fine.
[/quote]
uh...you don't lose indepence in a seminary. I am a girl but I know. And it isn't like adolescent boot camp or boarding school. Sorry but it is not. Minor seminary maybe but that is like undergrad. Grad schools are different.



[quote]
I was able to find a University that met all my personal needs. If I went into a secular career, I'd be able to find one that met all my needs. Why should that be so unbelievable in a seminary? Why must they all be so rigid, especially when that hasnt seemed to guarantee anything about the psychological quality of the men emerging (if anything, it is has created a clerical culture severely turned in on itself)?
[/quote]
Because it is no longer about you. That is the point. It is about the Church. If you become a priest your service is to the Church as petty, trivial or mundane you might find the work. If that is something you cannot deal with then you should not become a priest. They are not rigid to guarantee the psychological quality of future priests, they are "rigid" because they are training you for the priesthood.

Sorry if this sounds harsh or whatever but I am not going to sugar coat it. I've never discerned the priesthood. I've had family and friends discern. I've discerned the religious life. But most of all, I am a potential congregation member of you and a member of the Church.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

Maybe I'm not as good at describing it.

But take a look at this interview with a priest. He is describing a certain well-known congregation that is the subject of a visitation, but the things he describes are the kinds of things that I'm talking about in general, and which I think can apply to MANY if not most seminaries and religious orders these days, to more or less degrees:

[url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339296?eng=y"]http://chiesa.espres...o/1339296?eng=y[/url]

"At the core of serious problems in the internal culture of the congregation is a mistaken understanding and living of the theological principle - in itself valid - that God's will is made manifest to the religious through his superior. The [...] seminarian is erroneously led to foster a hyper-focusing on internal "dependence" on the superior for virtually every one of his intentional acts (either explicitly or in virtue of some norm or permission received, or presumed or habitual permissions). This is not in harmony with the tradition of religious life in the Church, nor is it theologically or psychologically sound. It entails rather an unhealthy suppression of personal freedom (which is a far cry from the reasoned, discerned and freely exercised oblation of mind and will that the Holy Spirit genuinely inspires in the institution of religious obedience) and occasions unholy and unhealthy restrictions on personal conscience.

Furthermore, [...] norms regarding "reporting to," "informing," "communication with," and"dependence on" superiors constitute a system of control and conformity which now must be considered highly suspect [...]. They furthermore engender a simplistic, and humanly and theologically impoverished notion of God's will (its discernment and manifestation) that breeds personal immaturity.

More seriously,the lived manner in which [they] practice obedience is laced with the kind of unquestioning submission which allowed the cult of personality to emerge [...] in the first place and covered for [...] misdeeds. [S]eminarians are essentially trained to suspend reason in their obedience and to seek a total internal conformity with all the norms, and to withstand any internal impulse to examine or critique the norms or the indications of superiors.

Granted, the primary motivation behind such living of obedience is the ideal of total "immolation" of oneself for the love of Christ as embodied in the relentless living of all norms and indications of the superiors. This "immolation" of intellect and will is at the heart of the "holocaust" that [they are] invited to live for love of Christ and the Church. While the motivation is valid,and generations [...] have pursued this in good faith, in the long run it not only proves profoundly problematic, but also explains the negative personality change which many, if not most, [...]undergo over time: the shallowness of their emotional expression, the lack of empathy and inability to relate normally to others in so many contexts, the general sense of their being "out of touch," etc. Only exceptionally do [...] priests move beyond this, but only thanks to the multiple talents and human gifts they brought with them..."


Yet these same things are, essentially, what I've seen at most conservative and traditional seminaries and which many posters here seem to be romanticizing.

Yet who can I talk to about this? Luckily, at college I found some friends in the same position, who are orthodox Catholics but havent handed over free thought or critical thinking when it comes to the deep deep institutional problems in the clergy.

But it's hard to talk to conservative priests, who are susceptible to the same things, having been through the seminary re-socialization themselves, and it is apparently hard to talk to other conservative discerners who likewise seemingly romanticize this mindset. Many good Catholics wearing rose-colored glasses and perceive it as being willful or attacking the Church.

And yet we're not liberal, but in some ways my friends and I relate to them a lot better on a personal level, even if ideologically disagreeing. It's very disturbing that orthodox Catholicism cannot be separated from the neuroses for too long associated with it.

Edited November 8, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[HisChild]

Let me ask you something: What first hand experience have you had at any of these seminaries? Not hearsay, but first hand.

(And you still didn't answer my earlier question of if you have seen a vocation director for your diocese or a spiritual director or even your pastor.)

You are comparing a community whose founder has demanded cult-like practices of its members to regular seminaries. Perhaps the Regnum and the Legion have called it their practice to demand dependence on the superior for minutiae. But I don't think that's even in the same universe as issues like curfew, which if you think about it, is not that big of a thing. It's like what my parents used to say when I was living at home and going to college: You live in my house, you abide by my rules.

No one is in denial that we have serious issues with our clergy. At least I'm sure as heck not. I know there are issues. And until our current bishop showed up on scene most of the problems centered around priests who as you said were not celibate, drank like fish, and spoke in their homilies about the justification for married and female priests and other things that as a Church we do not believe. It wasn't the traditional priests who were wreaking havoc on the people, but the liberals. And while I had some pretty poor experiences about liberal priests I'm not going to generalize. Neither am I going to say that ALL traditional priests are good and holy either. But I don't think that blanketly accusing traditional seminaries is the answer.

You claim that we are romanticizing but truly, you've never even given it a thought that our own experiences are so far removed from your own. You call religious life 'weird' and those within so completely removed from normal. Even when religious have posted on here that their own community is not how you describe and you should give them a try. Then a couple years later you come back and say that now that you've discerned you're not called to religious life, you're discerning a call to the priesthood and that too is filled with issues completely unsat to your rigid expectations.

Blind obedience? I have heard in some religious communities that if you are told to do something completely absurd it is better to obey as the person of the superior acts as a little Christ, but from what I've seen that's only in formation. In every community I've ever discerned with I've been told that if you're asked to do something completely against the law or your conscience then of course they'd want you to discuss this with your superior or maybe even not obey! And since you've made it clear you're not called to religious life, this isn't even an issue with you. I've NEVER heard of a bishop who demanded blind obedience of his diocesan priests, so again comparing this unfortunate religious order has NOTHING to do with diocesan vocations.

No one said you were 'attacking the Church'. But you ARE comparing a secular career with the life of a priest. If the priesthood and its formation were similar or the same, anyone would be able to apply for the job, so to speak. The priests I've known, many of whom have been ordained within the last ten years. None have gone on about the issue of obedience. None. All their correspondence with me while they were in the seminary was about how much they loved it there. I know you'll be quick to claim they must be those people who love obedience and being controlled and don't have a mind of their own as you mentioned in your previous posts, but let me assure you this is NOT the case with any of the rowdy guys I know. And not one appears to have any of the neuroses, rose-colored idealism, or alcoholism that you've mentioned as being at the root of being in a traditional seminary.

Lastly, let me only say that you're so quick to point out that it MUST be the traditional religious life or traditional seminaries at fault for all these issues we currently have in our church (issues that I am VERY aware of, so no, I do not believe our Church is doing peachy), and while they may have their issues, you fail to accept that more 'progressive' seminaries have problems of their own, perhaps even contributing to the greater vocation problem we have today.

Look, no matter which side of the fence you're on, traditional, liberal, diocesan, religious, male, female, you're going to find places that are great and places that are abhorrent. And even in those great places you will discover SOMETHING that you are annoyed with or even loathe. Nothing is utopian while here on earth. But at its roots, if you choose to be a priest you will have to accept that you will be required to be obedient to the bishop and you will have boundaries while in seminary. Being in seminary and all its rubrics is a way to show you're man enough for the challenge and that you won't be a problem child later on. No one is talking blind obedience, no one is talking about micro management. But, it's the first step in proving you're mature enough to recognize your life for the most part is no longer fully your own. While you may have vacations or days off here and there, you are there for Christ, who has asked you to be there for His people. It isn't a laissez faire vocation. And if you cannot accept that, then I don't see how any vocational director would recommend you for their diocese. I could be wrong. Completely.

My only recommendation for you if you are insistent on pursuing what you feel is your religious vocation and that you are not even a tiny bit wrong in your thinking is to search out a more progressive diocese like Orange County CA or some place similar who would be more receptive to your requirements and ask them for advice. But if you want to be in an orthodox diocese, you're going to have to play by their rules, meaning that of the Ordinary of the area. There really isn't more to say after that.

Peace to you and good luck.

[zunshynn]

Crux...

The priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Is it appropriate for a parent to say, "OK, I fed my kids, they have clothes on and a shelter over their heads, so don't make any more demands on my time... I'll be back at such and such a time." No way! There's more to parenting than the basics. They have to be willing at any time to drop what maybe they would "like" to do to bandage skinned knees, change poopy diapers, console a child whose feelings have been hurt, etc. etc. And those things may not fall into a 9-5 time frame.

If you're looking for something to do with your life that allows you to help people, but only so long as it corresponds to your stipulations of what should be required, the priesthood is not for you. The priesthood fatherhood. Please don't pursue the priesthood with the attitude you seem to have now... not only for the sake of the people who would be entrusted to you, but for your own sake as well. It won't make you happy, if you are not willing to sacrifice yourself, and your own will. It is a life of sacrifice... that is what it is meant to be.

Religious life demands everything of a person... and I'm sure diocesan clerical life would be the same... The type of sacrifices demanded are different, true, but they are, nonetheless, both lives of sacrifice. It will never satisfy you if you do not give yourself completely to it. Never. A priest is called to be another Christ, who gave himself You cannot hold back. You cannot agree to do all of your basic duties, even to near perfection, but all the while insist that your "freedoms" to spend your time however you like be respected. That's not freedom, that's slavery to your own desires. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with priests taking vacations, or needing time away. But they absolutely must be willing to let go of that time when its necessary, even if its a demand placed upon them beyond the "minimum required".

Look at Padre Pio... extremely obedient, even when that meant incredible suffering, some of which was arguably from unjust demands. But he is a saint of the church, a man who brought countless men and women to conversion and deeper relationships with God. I can assure you he was not negotiating and looking for assignments that satisfied what he felt like he wanted. Same with St. John Vianney, a parish priest.

Think about the story of the good shepherd and the hireling (John 10). Which one, honestly, are you more describing?

Also... you're contradicting yourself ALOT. You say you don't like the so-called "Traditional" seminaries because they are too rigid, and strict. Then you complain about all the priests that have been ordained the last 40 years... These aren't the same men, most likely. I know seminarians from a lot of the so-called "Traditional" seminaries... the Josephinum... Our Lady of Guadalupe... they are rigid, yes, they demand obedience, but they are not producing robotic priests incapable of thinking for themselves. The last 40 years have not been known for their rigid seminary life... exactly the opposite, which is why the Vatican is working on fixing things in them.

And anyway, blind obedience is not being demanded... but even if it was, so long as you were not being asked to violate the moral law, obedience to it would still be more meritorious than disobedience, because God loves humility. He can work with humility. He cannot work with pride. Even if you were insisting on spending your spare time reading great spiritual treatises before the Blessed Sacrament, and you were told instead to do something "silly" by your rector, or bishop, doing what you were told would merit more for your own soul, and save many more than if you had done what you thought seemed holier.

I will be praying for you...

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]The priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Is it appropriate for a parent to say, "OK, I fed my kids, they have clothes on and a shelter over their heads, so don't make any more demands on my time... I'll be back at such and such a time." No way! There's more to parenting than the basics. They have to be willing at any time to drop what maybe they would "like" to do to bandage skinned knees, change poopy diapers, console a child whose feelings have been hurt, etc. etc. And those things may not fall into a 9-5 time frame.[/quote]

But that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, the comparison to married life is very ironic, because it seems to me that married men (either those studying to be permanent deacons or former protestant ministers) are treated a lot more like adults by the seminaries.

If I felt at all called to marriage and family life, it would be fine. Parents, yes, have responsibilities. But they also set the rules. I just find it very patronizing that as an adult, in seminary, I'd have the threat of having my room searched or getting "in trouble" like I'm sort of middle school student.

I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.

[quote]That's not to say that there's anything wrong with priests taking vacations, or needing time away. But they absolutely must be willing to let go of that time when its necessary, even if its a demand placed upon them beyond the "minimum required". [/quote]

Again, I dont think you're understanding my complaint. This isnt about the real responsibilities being to heavy. Once I was ordained, I think I'd be fine as a parish priest, and would definitely take on quite a lot of responsibilities beyond the "bare minimum" I see a lot of priests doing because that is just my personality. Given the resources, I am very effective in terms of starting projects, rallying people to participate, etc. But that takes a lot of independence and freedom to not stifle it.

In contrast to that, however, seminary life seems the exact opposite. There are, frankly, very few responsibilities for the men as students beyond their school work (which all priests I know have told me was easier than undergrad, especially if you already know the Faith), instead there is a control of all their time, their movements, a pressure to conform, and a culture of secrecy and authoritarianism.

The latter does not adequately prepare men for the former. In the real world, they will be expected to take on a lot of responsibility independently (instead of relying on constant direction and discipline from superiors), will have to be spontaneous and think on their feet, will have to learn how to handle all this unstructured time they suddenly get in a healthy way.

The life of a diocesan priest definitely appeals to me, that's not the question. The question is seminary life. I know it would only have to last 5 years, but 5 years is a long time. Why is there such a disconnect between the atmosphere of priestly life, and the atmosphere of the training, which seems a sort of "hazing" as it were, and seems to be the exact opposite of the life they will be expected to lead on their own. When you go from living in a virtual Panopticon with constant supervision, to living alone in some rectory expected to do everything yourself...well, we've seen there can be a real break-down. The "theoretical" hope is that the men will internalize the dynamics so they continue them on their own, but we've seen that doesnt happen. The "honor system" has been a huge failure for priests out in the world. Not because, methinks, there is anything inherently dangerous in independence (I obviously think it is healthy), but when you train men to live in such an utterly dependent controlled way...and then throw them out to some country parish alone...they cant handle that.

"The last 40 years have not been known for their rigid seminary life... exactly the opposite, which is why the Vatican is working on fixing things in them."

My question is why they have to go hand-in-hand. People seem to be under the impression that we either have to sacrifice orthodox OR psychological health. That it's either conservative theology in a rigid atmosphere, or liberal theology in an open atmosphere. Couldnt we have conservative theology in an open atmosphere?

"You are comparing a community whose founder has demanded cult-likepractices of its members to regular seminaries. Perhaps the Regnum andthe Legion have called it their practice to demand dependence on thesuperior for minutiae. But I don't think that's even in the sameuniverse as issues like curfew, which if you think about it, is notthat big of a thing. It's like what my parents used to say when I wasliving at home and going to college: You live in my house, you abide bymy rules."

But I think the difference between the Legion and other seminaries is merely one of Degree, not nature. I have witnessed the same dynamics many places. Much muted, thank God, much toned down...but still, different only in degree, not nature. The authoritarianism, the rigidity, the control, the Big Brother-like supervision. The paranoid fear that terrible things are going to happen if a group of seminarians go out to a restaurant for dinner (when much worse things are happening IN some of the seminarians' rooms). The control, to varying degrees, of access to outside communication or information. The absolute militaristic exaltation of obedience above all other virtues. The pressure to conform even in affect and mannerism.

[zunshynn]

[quote]I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.
[/quote]

The reason for that is that asking and getting one's superior's permission and blessing bestows the blessing of God on that person, even for something as silly as asking for toothpaste. I was an extern with a monastery where, for a time, we had gotten away from asking for permissions for things like that. The idea was that the externs were such a small group, there was no reason really to have to ask, we could just go into the economy and get whatever we needed. After awhile, my superior decided that it would be good for us to ask again. Why? Because she couldn't trust us, or because we weren't mature enough to know what we needed? Not at all! But by just getting it ourselves, we missed out on the blessing of God for that action. It supernaturalizes and sanctifies the mundane act of getting the toothpaste, to have the blessing of obedience for it. There is a certain beauty in the practice of humility in the small things. That didn't mean it was any less an open environment.

[quote]Again, I dont think you're understanding my complaint. This isnt about the real responsibilities being to heavy. Once I was ordained, I think I'd be fine as a parish priest, and would definitely take on quite a lot of responsibilities beyond the "bare minimum" I see a lot of priests doing because that is just my personality. Given the resources, I am very effective in terms of starting projects, rallying people to participate, etc. But that takes a lot of independence and freedom to not stifle it. [/quote]

I do understand your complaint. But what you don't seem to understand is that religious life and the priesthood is not about getting the people that do the best work, can accomplish the most. It is not about doing what you think is the best, most productive thing. Oftentimes, it entails sacrificing what you believe would be the best use of your time, even what [i]objectively[/i] may be the most productive thing to be obedient. Obedience is not an obligation set in place because the members of a religious community to make them childish and immature, but to conform them to Christ who was obedient unto death. Christ is not extolled for his power, for his grandeur, for his abilities, but for his obedience. The obediences that religious exercise in even the small things, conform them to Christ. It's not about being the mover and the shaker... it's about being like Christ.

I don't really see basis for these sweeping generalizations that you are making about seminary life, or that they produce priests who can't handle parish life.The point I was making was that the men at these so-called rigid seminaries [i]are[/i] psychologically healthy. I mean look at the FSSP... they have a very structured seminary life, and then right after they are ordained they're thrown into parish life, and they handle it very well.

Just because it seems unreasonable TO YOU for priestly formation to work the way it does, does not mean that it IS unreasonable. That doesn't mean that there aren't men who are ordained, in any age, who really were not psychologically up to it... But to insist that institutions of the Church should bend to what you believe is better, after centuries of timehonored tradition which has produced great saints and a majority of priests who were healthy, and holy, is a little egotistical, if you ask me...

[Thomist-in-Training]

Crux, I'm PMing you the name & email of one of my friends in seminary.

[cmaD2006]

There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed John XXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been out on your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60.

http://www.blessedjohnxxiii.edu/

I can't say for sure if that seminary has different restrictions -- but it may be work looking into. Also regardless, you would have to obtain sponsorship from a Diocese in order to enter that seminary (per their website).

Edited November 9, 2009 by cmariadiaz

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]Because she couldn't trust us, or because we weren't mature enough toknow what we needed? Not at all! But by just getting it ourselves, wemissed out on the blessing of God for that action. It supernaturalizesand sanctifies the mundane act of getting the toothpaste, to have theblessing of obedience for it. There is a certain beauty in the practiceof humility in the small things. That didn't mean it was any less anopen environment.[/quote]

Yes, and that all sounds good in theory. It's very nice sounding on paper. But I could see it getting unnecessarily annoying in practice. Of course, if these are cloistered nuns, it makes more sense, and if they can handle it, good for them. More as an aspect of poverty than obedience, I'd think, but that's a different type of life and one I've discerned is totally not for me.

[quote]But what you don't seem to understand is that religious life and thepriesthood is not about getting the people that do the best work, canaccomplish the most. It is not about doing what you think is the best,most productive thing. Oftentimes, it entails sacrificing what youbelieve would be the best use of your time, even what [i]objectively[/i]may be the most productive thing to be obedient. Obedience is not anobligation set in place because the members of a religious community tomake them childish and immature, but to conform them to Christ who wasobedient unto death. Christ is not extolled for his power, for hisgrandeur, for his abilities, but for his obedience. The obediences thatreligious exercise in even the small things, conform them to Christ.It's not about being the mover and the shaker... it's about being likeChrist.[/quote]

I get the sense that a lot of people giving me advice here have more experience with consecrated [i]religious[/i] life than with the secular priesthood which is, after all, the [i]secular[/i] priesthood.

Religious life is about the individual sanctification of the members, definitely. But the secular priesthood IS more concerned (or should be) with getting people who can do the best work, accomplish the most for the parish. The secular priest is the servant of his parish, as people have said, and of his bishop, and personal dynamism and competence on a practical level IS perhaps a lot more important than it is in a religious community (especially contemplative) where the goal is the sanctification of the members primarily. Holiness in secular priests is very desireable, of course, as it is in anyone...but it is not ultimately the primary goal in the diocesan priesthood as it is with religious life.

That's sort of my concern. That seminaries are like putting diocesan seminarians through a period more akin to the life lived by monks or contemplatives, when the whole point is that secular priests are NOT supposed to be monks or contemplatives. I'm definitely not called to that, I'm definitely called to secular life. Which is fine once ordained, but the seminary system in place since Trent seems to require that all seminarians go through what is essentially a period of pseudo-religious life first. Seminaries shouldnt be monasteries, not all men have that call, that's the point of the diocesan priesthood. But too many seem like they are.

[quote]I don't really see basis for these sweeping generalizations that youare making about seminary life, or that they produce priests who can'thandle parish life.The point I was making was that the men at theseso-called rigid seminaries [i]are[/i]psychologically healthy. I mean look at the FSSP... they have a verystructured seminary life, and then right after they are ordainedthey're thrown into parish life, and they handle it very well. [/quote]

Ahem, well, I'll refrain from comment here. I think that people must KNOW of places like I am describing, but are refraining from recommending them because of their own ideological bent. We all know there are places where you can live very independently. We all know there are groups of priests (even religious) who wear regular clothes and live alone in their own apartments. I'm not saying these are great, usually they are theologically liberal. But why couldnt such more secular, more independent dynamics...exist in a group that is theologically conservative? Why must theological orthodoxy be tied to Old World institutional models that are highly rigid and repressive?

[HisChild]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='08 November 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1257709211' post='1998291']

I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.


[/quote]


A couple years ago, we had a program in our parish where we were given a seminary to pray for all throughout his studies. The one I was given was in his early 40s. Each year I'd ask him what he needed and he'd tell me something like he was running low on socks or toothpaste or whatever. Once he even said that these particular stores were nearby so I could just send a gift card (he knew not to argue with me and tell me something like 'oh I'm fine, don't send anything! LOL). So I know that he never had to go to a rector to ask for permission to get these things.

Are you sure you're not dealing with a very singular institute?

He was in OR, and I know he was never treated the way you claim. And he's just one of my most recent examples...

[picchick]

I am not trying to patronize you but perhaps you are comparing minor seminary to major seminary? I have heard about the permissions and the searching being done at minor seminaries but not at major seminary.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

"There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed JohnXXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been outon your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60."

Very interesting. Not quite in the age range yet, but definitely something to keep in mind.

But it's very existence seems to confirm the existence of the double-standard I was mentioning with married permanent deacon candidates (and married former protestant ministers). They seem to treat older men, or married men, or men who have had a career first...with more respect, frankly. Like adults. Whereas men in their 20's seem to be treated more like children.

I dont know how the fact that the seminarian you were given, HisChild, was in his early 40s effected the level of independence his superiors allowed. It seems that if you are closer to them in age, they give you more independence/treat you more like an equal, whereas there is still a lot of "talking down" to the guys in their 20s. I guess because they're more willing to put up with that in a way that someone who's already had a career and lived out in the world wouldnt?

I dont know, but there is definitely this idea of keeping the younger guys "innocent" and "uncorrupted" that gives off a creepy vibe, and which is very different than how they treat older men who may be more of their peers age-wise.

Just an observation. So maybe the answer is just for me to wait until I'm older, till when they dont dare treat you like a child anymore??


For example, look at how Fr Zuhlsdorf lives. He's a graduate student in Rome apparently, but he's always globe-trotting, living on his farm, going to different conferences. He gives no indication that he has to go ask his bishop about every trip or anything. He's able to do it because he came in with a lot of money of his own from a prior career, apparently. Frankly, if I were a priest, I would feel very guilty living like that. The kind of "freedom" I'm talking about pales in comparison to that sort of independence. I just mean, like, being able to go to a store when I need something or out for lunch with friends on free-time (instead of having every minute of every day structured, being told that it's "lights out," etc). Yet, Fr Z is a well-respected priest. Is that the answer: having your own money? If I made a lot of money in a career first, and therefore wasnt particularly expecting them to "provide" for me or "take care of" me...do you think they treat those people differently in terms of self-direction than the young ones who come in with nothing of their own???

Edited November 9, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[humbleheart]

[quote]Holiness in secular priests is very desireable, of course, as it is in anyone...but it is not ultimately the primary goal in the diocesan priesthood as it is with religious life.[/quote]

Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whether that's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the single life. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we can only sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If the imitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilities and personal qualities count for very little.

When I was a child we had a parish priest who was a remarkably intelligent man. He also had great charisma and affinity with his parishioners - our church was packed, week in and week out, with cars spilling out of the car park and people having to park on the road or in the playground of the nearby school. He gave wonderful sermons. He was a gifted hospital chaplain and confessor. He was very well liked in the community, and our parish kept growing year after year.

Then he suffered a stroke. He never regained his speech. He also suffered profound memory loss. His intellectual ability, all those well-written erudite sermons, his knack for laughing and joking with parishioners - gone.

His holiness remained. I will never forget the sight of him shambling up the aisle on his walking-frame during a special Mass for the children of our Catholic primary school. He was hastily followed by his sister and the deacon, who evidently thought that he had got confused. (He needed twenty-four hour care by this point.) We children were singing the kind of hymn that nowadays I would be tempted to dismiss as trite - "He's got the whole world in his hands!" - with accompanying arm gestures. I watched as his sister and the deacon tried to guide Father back to his seat, but he insisted on pushing forward. Then, slumped over his walker, he started to join in with the actions to the song.

I don't remember his brilliant sermons or his great charisma. I was too young. I do remember the sight of his arms jerkily making those movements and ropes of drool hanging from his poor misshapen mouth. Now that I know more about the severity of his stroke, I appreciate how much it must have cost him to shuffle up that aisle and stand there and pray with us like that. It wasn't his intellect or his personality that got him up there.

If holiness is only a secondary concern for you, what will you do if one day God sees fit to take all your abilities away, the way He did with Father Foley? They're only on loan to you, anyway.

[quote]Ahem, well, I'll refrain from comment here. I think that people must KNOW of places like I am describing, but are refraining from recommending them because of their own ideological bent. We all know there are places where you can live very independently. We all know there are groups of priests (even religious) who wear regular clothes and live alone in their own apartments. I'm not saying these are great, usually they are theologically liberal. But why couldnt such more secular, more independent dynamics...exist in a group that is theologically conservative? Why must theological orthodoxy be tied to Old World institutional models that are highly rigid and repressive?
[/quote]

You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising you only have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite a different thing from secular priesthood. You have experience with neither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director or pastor?

What you've written here shows me that you're not taking in anything of what has been said. In response to Zunshynn's post, you write that holy obedience is good for the nuns 'if they can handle it'. You may struggle to believe this, as you are trying to make your decisions based on your personal tastes, but most sisters don't go into the religious life because they think they can handle it. They go in expecting to be given the grace to handle it, yes, but their weaknesses and strengths are not their first consideration. You make it sound as though vocation is about human ability rather than divine grace, and that simply isn't true. Did Peter have the abilities to be the first Pope? I don't think so. He couldn't even 'handle' the servant-girl's question on the night before the crucifixion, let alone the responsibility of the papacy. He was only able to do it because he focused so completely on Christ, and he knew that he had absolutely nothing of his own to offer.

[organwerke]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='09 November 2009 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1257742767' post='1998659']
"There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed JohnXXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been outon your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60."

Very interesting. Not quite in the age range yet, but definitely something to keep in mind.

But it's very existence seems to confirm the existence of the double-standard I was mentioning with married permanent deacon candidates (and married former protestant ministers). They seem to treat older men, or married men, or men who have had a career first...with more respect, frankly. Like adults. Whereas men in their 20's seem to be treated more like children.

[/quote]

But are you simply looking for "your" seminary, or are you trying to rebel and complain because not all seminaries (and not only seminaries, but also religious institutions etc.) are like "yours"?

I ask you because there is a big difference: in one case you are only looking for your own way, and I think you could have success, while in the other one you don't accept anything different from yor ideal, and in this case usually vocations fail, or, worst, they create scandals, divisions and so on...
Now, if it is the first hypothesis, I'm sorry that I don't know how to help you because I don't know seminaries in US...
Because, after all, now that I understand your point, I think you could be a good priest.

If hypothesis two... I sincerely advice you to give up.

[HisChild]

[quote name='humbleheart' date='09 November 2009 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1257769063' post='1998728']
Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whether that's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the single life. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we can only sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If the imitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilities and personal qualities count for very little.

...

If holiness is only a secondary concern for you, what will you do if one day God sees fit to take all your abilities away, the way He did with Father Foley? They're only on loan to you, anyway.

You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising you only have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite a different thing from secular priesthood. You have experience with neither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director or pastor?

What you've written here shows me that you're not taking in anything of what has been said. In response to Zunshynn's post, you write that holy obedience is good for the nuns 'if they can handle it'. You may struggle to believe this, as you are trying to make your decisions based on your personal tastes, but most sisters don't go into the religious life because they think they can handle it. They go in expecting to be given the grace to handle it, yes, but their weaknesses and strengths are not their first consideration. You make it sound as though vocation is about human ability rather than divine grace, and that simply isn't true. Did Peter have the abilities to be the first Pope? I don't think so. He couldn't even 'handle' the servant-girl's question on the night before the crucifixion, let alone the responsibility of the papacy. He was only able to do it because he focused so completely on Christ, and he knew that he had absolutely nothing of his own to offer.
[/quote]

I couldn't have put it better myself. Holiness IS the aim and goal of our vocation, whether that be to married life or to any form of consecration/ordination. I'm sure, in the eyes of Crux, we're just being romantic when we write this, never mind that the words initially came from the mouth of our former Holy Father. Faith without works might be dead, but works without faith is equally absurd.

This is so frustrating. It could be that it's a Monday and I've had an extremely long week with a very short weekend. It could be that I'm frustrated with my own debt in the world and wish I was at the point in my life where I could simply visit a community and enter. It could just be that I'm at the end of my patience. Mea culpa to anyone if I seem harsh.

I've tried to explain what I perceive as faulty logic, but I don't think Crux even chooses to even TRY to look at where we're coming from, seemingly only choosing to begin debating in his mind and on another post before he's finished reading our words. As he's more focused on the temporal rather than the spiritual, with his generalizing treatises that all religious life and seminaries treat others like children, which is only a good thing for those who enjoy being placed on a short leash, I really don't think he's going to have an 'aha' moment here and realize that even in the smallest of shares, what [u]any[/u] of us writes has merit. That is, unless someone is able to pull a magical seminary out of their proverbial hat.

I've asked of Crux [u]several[/u] questions without any response. He's only interested in telling us how wrong we all are and how pathetic it is that no one understands him and that he can better speak with the liberals because even though they have different theological opinions at least they treat him as an adult vs. us who cannot be separated from our 'neuroses'.

I'm at the point of wondering if he's simply arguing for its own sake and while I've long tried in charity to answer his questions with patronizing remarks in return, I've decided to stop feeding the monkey as the saying goes because it's clear that all he's looking for is for someone to agree with him and/or generate the mob mentality of 'that's right! How dare they...' Either that, or pull some unnamed seminary out of thin air that will allow him to do the legwork of being ordained while at the same time allowing him to do pretty much whatever he wants as 'an independent American adult' the rest of the time.

Crux, you're obviously not getting the information you're looking for here. You came onto a public forum asking our advice, we gave it based on the way you phrased your request. It wasn't what you were looking for. Do you not realize by now that we probably don't have the solution you seek, in the way you seek it? We may be able to give you what you need, but it's obviously not what you want. I will say a third time that you should talk to your pastor, the diocesan vocation director, or find a diocese more liberal who can pull the resources you're looking for from their rolodexes. If you're looking for prayer for your vocation, if you're looking for support once you're in the seminary, if you're looking for anything other than seeking an outlet for continual negativity and complaining about everything but your own opinions, well you know where we are.

You'll be in my prayers. Good luck.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]But are you simply looking for "your" seminary, or are you trying torebel and complain because not all seminaries (and not only seminaries,but also religious institutions etc.) are like "yours"?[/quote]

I assure, if I could find a place I was comfortable with, I really wouldnt care what was going on elsewhere. I might be a bit concerned in an abstract theoretical way, and might mention it if a bishop asked my opinion or something, but the thing about me is (unlike a lot of these seminaries!) that I am very "live and let live" when it comes to stuff like that. If I'm content where I am, and other people are content where they are...good for both of us! The Church has room for that sort of diversity. But the "seminary as monastery" model is definitely not for me. If I wanted to live like a monk, I'd go to a real monastery! I wouldnt try to impose the life I imagine on everyone if they didnt want it, why should they try to impose their model on me?

[quote]Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whetherthat's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the singlelife. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we canonly sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If theimitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilitiesand personal qualities count for very little.[/quote]

Yes, but it doesnt work the other way around. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A priest needs to be holy, but he also does need to be competent. In religious life, I've seen a sort of idealism replace any sort of pragmatism many places. And contemplatives, especially, can afford that, I guess. They dont really need people to competent on a practical level, as their sole goal is personal holiness.

Parish priests, on the otherhand, you can't treat that way. You CANNOT just say, "As long as they're holy, that's all that matters" like you can moreso with a contemplative. If a parish priest is holy, but totally incompetent, or creepy, or dull, or awkward interpersonally, etc...then that definitely [i]does[/i] matter. Yet many current seminaries seem designed on the model of religious life, to ensure holiness (which is a good thing in itself). But if they dont correspondingly weed-out (or funnel into monasteries) those who lack the interpersonal skills and competence needed to live a secular vocation like the diocesan priesthood (or worse, positively scare such people away)...then is a half-baked system. Holiness need not be opposed to those other skills, and seminaries dont have to sacrifice the latter in favor of the former; there are ways to train priests in holiness without turning the seminaries into pseudo-monasteries.

[quote]You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising youonly have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite adifferent thing from secular priesthood. You have experience withneither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold yourown abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the pointin asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director orpastor?[/quote]

Once again, my point was practical, not ideological. Specific and concrete, not abstract and theoretical.

Namely, I wanted to know (and still want to know) if anyone knew of any seminaries that allow for greater independence and secular life, instead of being these sorts of pseudo-monastic institution. Does anyone know any places or groups that train men for the priesthood...that are theologically and liturgically conservative, but which live in the more open "modern" way more typically associated with liberal orders after Vatican II?? A seminary where I could live like the grown-up I am, rather than being institutionalized like a child at boarding school.

This is a real question, that will be answered either with a "no, I dont know of any" or with a suggestion of places. It should be that simple. Do you know of any such places or not?? Please dont question my motives as for why I want such a place. Please dont try to argue that even if such places exist, they shouldnt. No, if they [i]do[/i] currently exist, I would like to know. This wasnt supposed to be about people trying to justify or defend the types of place that I've made it clear (and for what reasons) I have discerned I definitely DONT want. That's not asked for. Yet instead, rather than just give me the information on where any such places might exist, people are trying to convince me that that's not what it should be like. They may or may not know of any places like that, but if they do they are with-holding the information because they dont agree with such places and refuse to recommend them.

It is people [i]here[/i] who have interpretted it as an attack on other places (as I said, I dont really care if the other places are like this, if only I could find ONE that wasnt) and turned this thread into a defense of such places. It is people [i]here[/i] who have turned it into some sort of abstract discussion of my motives. It is people [i]here[/i] who taking everything idealistically instead of pragmatically...who started picking apart the very notion on a theoretical level instead of just giving me a simple practical answer as to whether they knew of any such places or not. I appreciate the concern, but that's not what I asked for.

I know there are groups that live in the open secular (ie, in-the-world instead of sheltered from it) way I imagine. Typically they are associated with the "sweater-wearing liberal nuns" in their 60's who have their own apartments, etc. But I dont see why that sort of life need necessarily be associated with theological liberalism. The secular priesthood is, after all, the secular priesthood...so I dont understand why the training takes place in a setting withdrawn-from and sheltered-from the world, when the whole life they are going to be expected to lead afterward is going to be very unsupervised, independent, and in-the-world. Yes, we all need to withdraw sometimes, but that's what Retreats are for. 5 years of seminary separated from the world, under constant supervision, very much dependent, etc...seems counter-intuitive to me when the men are going to be expected to live so heavily IN the world after that, on their own. But, if it works for some men, great! However, I'm wondering if there might not be at least ONE place that isnt. One place where priests can do their studies independently (more like regular university students), talk to a spiritual director weekly or whatever, maybe live in some sort of dorm with the other seminarians and attend daily liturgy with them, but otherwise be able to live independently and not under a rigid schedule.

I never asked for a defense of religious life or the pseudo-monastic model most seminaries seem to run on currently. I have discerned that's not for me. My comments were meant to describe what qualities I'm NOT looking for in order to help people recommend places that ARENT like that. It wasnt meant as an attack, I'm not looking for a justification of that model. I'm just asking for recommendations of places that dont use it.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation,what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocationsdirector or pastor?[/quote]

Because I didnt come here asking for "advice" spiritually or anything like that. I came seeking simple FACTUAL information: do any of you know of any places that are like I describe, or rather, that DONT have the qualities I've described as disturbing (and why) to me.

Anyone? There are thousands of communities with all sorts of diversity. Surely someone must know some? I'd even be open to hearing about moderately liberal communities at this point as long as they were sane. By which I just mean sane [i]by my standards[/i], not meaning to imply a judgment of the other communities as "insane" by any sort of objective universal standard...people just have different personalities, and what is insane to one person may seem perfectly fine within another culture or community, but I thought the Church was supposed to have a place for all of them, not the narrowness and defensiveness I've seen expressed here which has only reinforced my fears again and again. When I asked, "Do y'all know of any places like this?" a simple, "No, I dont" or "Yes, for example..." would have been enough. People didnt need to get all preachy, start questioning the motives, start shooting down the criteria I mentioned. We all know some places like this exist (CTU mentioned earlier seems like one, though only religious orders send men there). If they arent for you, fine. But dont with-hold information about them from ME just because you ideological disagree with how they live or because they dont conform to YOUR ideas of what a seminary "should" be.

Edited November 9, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[HopeFloats]

Crux,

I know just what you mean, but you must be patient with those whose outlook is really more that of a contemplative. It is a very different mindset than many of us have, but one that is clearly very holy, and while, as you say, they may sometimes not make a great distinction between idealism and practicality, or may start questioning motives instead of being straightforward when they see someone desiring a life different from their ideal, this is perhaps a necessary part of that charism, where single-mindedness is so very important.

But, I have private messaged you with the contact information for a new group. Well, I'm not sure I'd even call it a group. It's somewhat new, so I can't say much publicly, but I think it would be very much what you desire. They train men for the priesthood, but it is very independent. The men live in a residence on the campus of a Catholic University. They attend classes (in philosophy/theology) with all the other students, though there are a few (like pastoral and liturgical practicums) which only they take obviously, and graduate in 5 years. They meet with the vocation/spiritual director weekly for an hour. They have Mass in their chapel every day and, while most attend, they are free to attend Mass in the University chapel or in any of the nearby parishes (I know one of them goes to the TLM at a nearby church daily instead of in the chapel). They are on the campus cafeteria meal plan, but are free to eat whenever their schedule permits. There is definitely no curfew or lights off! They can even leave to go home for the weekend or whatever without particularly needing to "tell" anyone. Like university students, I guess. There is a mandatory recreation all together only once a month, where they spend a whole Saturday together, though I hear the "mandatory" nature is rather a joke as all the men quickly become friends anyway and do stuff together all the time anyway.

However, the one hitch is that they do NOT provide for any of your necessities. You pay for room-and-board and tuition. And when you complete your degree and are ordained, they dont give you any salaried assignment or provide materially for you at all. A few of the priests work careers in the world (in that sense, sort of like a secular institute) and just say Mass privately in the morning, and volunteer in parishes that need priests on Sundays. One older guy apparently had enough money of his own and "retired" as soon as he was ordained and lives very much the "Fr Z" lifestyle you were describing. Most of the priests, however, seek out assignments with dioceses on 1-5 year contracts.

This sort of "freelance priesthood" negotiating for contracts and assignments with the dioceses might make some here very uncomfortable, as I'm sure you can guess. Some people around here have really bought into the Institutional model you describe, but let me tell you bishops short on priests are always glad to get one of these freelance guys for even just a few years. Some people on here are probably already scandalized, so I hesitate to say much more publicly. But if you have any more questions, PM me, and I encourage you to write them at the email I sent you, they sound like your kind of guys. They're very orthodox, but also very normal, definitely in the world and not withdrawn from it, but they are rather discrete (please dont confuse that with repressive secrecy) just because of the reaction they often got from the "mainstream" vocation crowd (ie, the ones who want more strictness).

They are definitely independent. They have a "moderator" who is elected from all of them for 2 year terms, and are ultimately under the jurisdiction of a certain quite liberal bishop who ordains them and is trying this model experimentally (he's actually the one who thought of it), but their main superior is supposed to be their own ordinary or whatever bishop they take an assignment with, for the duration of that agreement.

I think this may be the place for you, I felt a definite inspiration when I read your post.

In Christ,

HopeFloats

Edited November 10, 2009 by HopeFloats